Moreno P, Boulot J
Polyclinique du Parc, centre de chirurgie vertébrale, 31, rue des Bûchers, 31400 Toulouse, France.
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008 May;94(3):282-8. doi: 10.1016/j.rco.2007.12.011. Epub 2008 Mar 10.
The purpose of this study was to examine short-term clinical results with a lumbar disc prosthesis in comparison with anterior interbody fusion for the treatment of chronic low-back pain resulting from disc degeneration.
This was a consecutive series of 32 patients who underwent surgery between 2002 and 2005 performed by the same surgeon. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: a Charité (Depuy) disc prosthesis was implanted in group 1; an intersomatic KLA cage (Scient'x) was implanted in group 2. All patients presented primary or postdiscectomy discopathy: Modic 1 or 2 on MRI and one level (L4-L5 or L5-S1) positive on discography. A visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry test were noted preoperatively, at six months and at last follow-up and compared with Student's t test. The quantitative analysis was based on the rate of excellent results (60% gain on the VAS and 50% gain on the Oswestry), rate of return to work at three months and level of patient satisfaction.
Patient follow-up ranged from one to three years. Mean age was 39 years in group 1 and 44 in group 2. The quantitative analysis showed an improvement in the VAS in both groups: 75% in group 1 and 67% in group 2. The difference was not statistically significant. For the Oswestry score, the gain in function was improved 51% in group 1 and 37% in group 2, with a statistically significant difference in favor of the prosthesis group (p=0.125). The qualitative analysis demonstrated that patient satisfaction (87 and 88%) was similar in the two groups, but with a clear difference for return to work at three months, with a better rate in the prosthesis group (61.5%) than the fusion group (42.8%). The rate of excellent outcome was greater in group 1 (77%) than in group 2 (55%).
There is only one study in the literature, which can be compared with ours. Using the same methodology, that study observed less favorable results for the disc prosthesis than with anterior lumbar fusion.
The lumbar disc prosthesis offers a possible alternative to lumbar arthrodesis for the treatment of severe disc degeneration at one level in the young subject. It has been found to enable more rapid and superior functional results.
本研究旨在比较腰椎间盘假体与前路椎间融合术治疗椎间盘退变所致慢性下腰痛的短期临床效果。
这是一组连续的32例患者,于2002年至2005年间由同一位外科医生进行手术。患者被随机分配至两个治疗组之一:第1组植入Charité(Depuy)椎间盘假体;第2组植入椎间KLA椎间融合器(Scient'x)。所有患者均表现为原发性或椎间盘切除术后椎间盘病变:MRI显示Modic 1或2级,椎间盘造影显示一个节段(L4-L5或L5-S1)阳性。术前、术后6个月及末次随访时记录视觉模拟量表(VAS)和Oswestry试验结果,并采用Student t检验进行比较。定量分析基于优良结果率(VAS改善60%,Oswestry改善50%)、3个月时的重返工作率和患者满意度水平。
患者随访时间为1至3年。第1组平均年龄为39岁,第2组为44岁。定量分析显示两组VAS均有改善:第1组为75%,第2组为67%。差异无统计学意义。对于Oswestry评分,第1组功能改善51%,第2组为37%,假体组有统计学显著差异(p = 0.125)。定性分析表明,两组患者满意度相似(分别为87%和88%),但3个月时重返工作率有明显差异,假体组(61.5%)高于融合组(42.8%)。第1组优良结果率(77%)高于第2组(55%)。
文献中只有一项研究可与我们的研究进行比较。采用相同方法,该研究观察到椎间盘假体的效果不如前路腰椎融合术。
对于年轻患者单节段严重椎间盘退变的治疗,腰椎间盘假体为腰椎融合术提供了一种可能的替代方法。已发现其能带来更快速且更好的功能结果。